A

LETTER to Mr. P---,

On the late Dispute about HOMER.

Y

OU defire my opinion as to the late difpute in France concerning HOMER: And I think it excusable (at an age alas of not much pleasure) to amuse my self, a little in taking notice of a controversy, than which nothing is at present more remarkable (even in a nation who value themfelves fo much upon the Belles Lettres) both on account of the illuftrious subject of it, and of the two perfons ingaged in the quarrel.

THE one, is extraordinary in all the Lyrick-kind of Poetry, even in the opinion of his very adverfary. The other, a Lady (and

of more value for being fo) not only of great Learning, but with a Genius admirably turn'd to that fort of it which most becomes her Sex, for foftness, genteelness, and promoting of vertue and fuch as (one would think) is not fo liable as other parts of scholarship, to rough difputes, or violent animofity.

YET it has so happen'd that no writers, even about Divinity it felf, have been more outrageous or uncharitable than these two polite authors; by fuffering their judgments to be a little warped (if I may use that expreffion) by the heat of their eager inclinations, to attack or defend so great an Author under debate: I wish, for the fake of the publick, which is now fo well entertain'd by their quarrel, it may not end at last in their agreeing to blame equally a third man, who is fo prefumptuous as to cenfure both, if they should chance to hear of it.

To begin with matter of fact. M. D'ACIER has well judg'd, that the best of all Poets certainly deferv'd a better translation, at least into French profe, because to see it done in verfe was despair'd of: I believe indeed from a defect in that language, incapable of mounting to any degree of excellence fuit. able to fo very great an undertaking.

SHE

SHE has not only perform'd this task as well as profe can do it, (which is indeed but as the wrong fide of tapestry is able to represent the right) fhe has added to it also many learned and useful annotations. With all which the most obligingly delighted not only her own fex, but most of ours, ignorant of the Greek, and confequently her adverfary himself, who frankly acknowledges that ignorance.

'Tis no wonder therefore if in doing this, fhe is grown fo enamour'd of that unspeakably-charming Author, as to have a kind of horror at the leaft mention of a man bold enough to blame him,

Now as to M. DE LA MOTTE, he being already defervedly famous for all forts of Lyrick poetry, was fo far introduc'd by her into those beauties of the Epick kind, (though but in that way of tranflation) as not to refift the pleasure and hope of reputation by attempting that in verfe, which had been applauded fo much for the difficulty of doing even in profe; knowing how this, well executed, muft extremely transcend the other.

BUT, as great Poets are a little apt to think they have an ancient right of being excus'd

excus'd for vanity on all occafions; he was not content to out-do M. D'ACIER, but endeavour'd to out-do HOMER himself, and all that ever in any age or nation went before him in the fame enterprize; by leaving out, altering, or adding whatever he thought beft.

AGAINST this prefumptuous attempt, Ho MER has been in all times fo well defended, as not to need my small affiftance; yet I must needs fay, his excellencies are such, that for their fakes, he deferves a much gentler touch for his few seeming errors. These, if M. DE LA MOTTE had tranflated as well as the rest, with an apology for having retain'd 'em only out of meer veneration; his judgment in my opinion would have appear'd much greater than by the best of his alterations, though admit them to be written very finely.

I

I join with M. DE LA MOTTE in wondering at fome odd things in HOMER, but 'tis chiefly because of his fublime ones, I was about to fay his divine ones, which almoft furprize me at finding him any where in the fallible condition of human nature.

AND now we are wond'ring, I am in a difficulty to guefs, what can be the reason of all these exceptions against HOMER, from one who has himself tranflared him, con

trary

trary to the general cuftom of translators. Is there not a little of that in it? I mean the defire to be fingular in getting above the title of a translator, though sufficiently honou rable in this cafe. For fuch an ambition no body has lefs occafion, than one who is fo fine a poet in other kinds; and who must have too much wit to believe, any alterations of another can intitle him to the denomination of an Epick Poet himself: though no man in this age seems more capable of being a good one, if the French tongue would bear it. Yet in his translation he has done too well, to leave any doubt (with all his faults) that her's can be ever parallell'd with it.

BESIDES, he could not be ignorant, that finding faults is the most easy and vulgar part of a critick; whereas nothing fhews fo much skill and tafte both, as the being throughly fenfible of the fublimeft excellencies.

WHAT can we say in excuse of all this, but Humanum eft errare? Since as good a Poet as I believe the French language is capable of, and as fharp a Critick as any nation can produce, has by too much cenfuring HOMER, fubjected a tranflation to cenfure, that would have otherwife ftood the teft of the severest adversary,

BUT